Reinventing Discovery_ The New Era of Networked Science - Michael Nielsen [6]
I wrote this book because I believe the reinvention of discovery is one of the great changes of our time. To historians looking back a hundred years from now, there will be two eras of science: pre-network science, and networked science. We are living in the time of transition to the second era of science. But it’s going to be a bumpy transition, and there is a possibility it will fail or fall short of its potential. And so I also wrote the book to help create a widely shared public understanding of the opportunity now before us, an understanding that a more open approach to science isn’t just a nice idea, but that it must be demanded of our scientists and our scientific institutions.
This change is important. Improving the way science is done means speeding up the rate of all scientific discovery. It means speeding up things such as curing cancer, solving the climate-change problem, launching humanity permanently into space. It means fundamental insights into the human condition, into how the universe works and what it is made of. It means discoveries we’ve not yet dreamt of. Over the next few years we have an astonishing opportunity to change and improve the way science is done. This book is the story of this change, what it means for us, and what we need to do to make it happen.
PART 1
Amplifying Collective Intelligence
CHAPTER 2
Online Tools Make Us Smarter
In 1999, world chess champion Garry Kasparov played a game of chess against “the World.” In this event, organized by Microsoft, the idea was that anyone in the world could go to the game website, and vote on what move should be taken next. On a typical move more than 5,000 people voted, and over the entire game 50,000 people from 75 countries voted. The World Team decided on a new move every 24 hours, and on any given turn the move taken was whichever got the most votes. The game was billed as.” IKasparov versus the World.”
The game exceeded all expectations. After 62 moves of innovative chess, in which the balance of the game changed several times, the World Team finally resigned. Kasparov called it “the greatest game in the history of chess,” and revealed that during the game he often couldn’t tell who was winning and who was losing; it wasn’t until the 51st move that the balance swung decisively in his favor. After the game, Kasparov wrote a book about it, and in that book he commented that he expended more energy on this one game than on any other in his career, including world championship games.
Although the World Team had input from some strong players, none was as strong as Kasparov himself, and the average quality of player was far below Kasparov. Yet collectively the World Team played a game far stronger than any of the individuals contributing would ordinarily have played—indeed, one of the strongest games in the history of chess. Not only did they play Kasparov at his best, but much of their deliberation about strategy and tactics was carried out in public, an advantage Kasparov used extensively. Imagine not only playing Garry Kasparov, but also having to explain to him the thinking behind your moves!
How was this possible? How could thousands of chess players, most of them amateurs, compete in a chess game with Kasparov at his peak? The World Team contained people at all levels of chess ability, from beginners to grandmasters. Moves regarded by experts as obviously mistaken sometimes obtained up to 10 percent of the vote, suggesting that many beginners were participating. On one move, 2.4 percent of the votes were cast for moves that weren’t merely bad, but actually violated the rules of chess!
The World Team coordinated their play in several ways. Microsoft set up a game forum where people could discuss